BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

5 results for “condonation of delay”+ Section 80clear

Sorted by relevance

Mumbai596Chennai537Delhi418Kolkata327Bangalore271Jaipur181Karnataka181Ahmedabad179Hyderabad170Pune138Chandigarh133Indore72Amritsar60Lucknow58Cochin48Surat45Panaji42Rajkot41Calcutta41Raipur39Visakhapatnam34Guwahati27Nagpur24Patna21Cuttack20SC17Telangana13Agra13Allahabad9Varanasi9Jabalpur9Dehradun7Jodhpur6Ranchi5Orissa3Andhra Pradesh2Rajasthan2Kerala1A.K. SIKRI N.V. RAMANA1Himachal Pradesh1

Key Topics

Section 801B8Section 11(2)5Section 271(1)(c)5Section 2745Section 143(1)(a)4Section 139(1)4Condonation of Delay4Section 139(4)2Section 139

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 5/RAN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act amounting to Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT

2
Deduction2

SURYA REALCON PRIVATE LIMITED,SARAIDHELA, DHANBAD vs. DCIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, DHANBAD

In the result, grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed

ITA 4/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 May 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)(a)Section 801Section 801B

condoned. Now adverting to the merit of the case. 5. Facts of the case in brief are that the CPC, Bangalore while processing the return under Section 143(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, the Act) has not been allowed deduction under Section 80IB of the Act amounting to Surya Realcon P Ltd. Vs DCIT

RAJARAM AGRAWAL,CHAKRADHARPUR vs. ITO, CHAIBASA

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 92/RAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi26 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan(Through Hybrid Mode) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.92/Ran/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-2017) Rajaram Agrawal, Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Chaibasa Ward No.7, Kali Mandir, Chakradharpur, West Singhbhum, Chakradharpur, Jharkhand स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aejpa 5952 Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Adv राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 26/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 26/11/2025 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Addl/Jcit(A)-2, Kolkata, Dated 23.03.2024 For The Assessment Year 2016- 2017. 2. Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, Ld.Ar Represented On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. 3. It Was Submitted By Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Time Barred By 314 Days. It Was The Prayer That The Delay May Be Condoned & Appeal Of The Assessee May Be Adjudicated. 4. I Have Perused The Records. The Affidavit Filed By The Assessee On For Condonation Of Delay Reads As Follow:-

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Kumar Jha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr
Section 44A

condone the delay and the appeal of the assessee is admitted to be disposed off on merits. 6. On merits, it was submitted by the ld.AR AR that the assessee is a dealer in Sugar, atta, maida and suji rice etc. It was the submission that the return has been filed by applying the provisions of Section 44AD

CRYSTAL THERMOTECH PVT.LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER PF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, JAMSHEDPUR, JAMSHEDPUR

In the result, this appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 80/RAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Section 132(1)Section 132(4)Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

80,490/- needs to be quashed. 2. That the very initiation of penalty is bad in law as the Ld. AO has failed to record a proper or transparent satisfaction in his notice while initiating proceedings under section 271(1)(c), thus rendering the entire penalty proceedings null and void. 3. That under the facts and circumstances, the initiation

NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF STUDY AND RESEARCH IN LAW,RANCHI vs. ASST. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX ,CPC, BENGALURU

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 399/RAN/2024[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi20 Nov 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) National University Of Study & Assistant Director Of Research In Law, Ranchi, Income Tax, Vs. Nusrl Campus, Pithoria Road, P.O- C.P.C., Bangaluru. Burku At Nagri, Jharkhand. Pan No. Aaajn 0847 Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143

80,231/- for the period under consideration out of which ₹ 8,25,86,586/- and ₹ 1,99,14,936/- were utilized against the revenue and capital expenditure respectively by the institute. The remaining ₹ 2,54,06,674/- were accumulated and set apart for the purpose as specified under Section 11(2) of the Act by the institute during the year